DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR Vs. BHANWARIAL SIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is an Atta Grinding mill at Jorhat called 'Jorhat Flour Mills'. A sample of atta was taken from the Respondent, who is the Manager of the mill on 4.7.73 The Public Analyst waived the same on 20th day of July, 1984 and as per his opinion dated 14th September, 1973, the sample was of "insect infested Atta having high alcoholic acidity", Insects were four in number per 100 gms and alcoholic acidity was 0.19% whereas as per the standard prescribed it should not have been more than 0.18%. A prosecution was, therefore, launched against the Respondent under Section 17 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter called the Act. As per the impugned judgment, the accused was, however, acquitted as it was held that the atta was not meant for sale, nor did the accused stored the same for sale. Feeling aggrieved, the District Food Inspector has preferred this appeal.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned trial Court come to the aforesaid conclusion on perusal of the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, the purport of which is that the mill in question was allotted wheat by the Supply Department and the resultant atta was also to be disposed of by the mill as per the allotment made by the Department. At the relevant time, the Jorhat Consumers' Goods Wholesale Co -operative Society was the only body which was given permit to lift atta from the mill. On the basis of this evidence, it was held that "the accused person had no control over the wheat or the resultant Atta" and, therefore, it was "very much doubtful" whether he was the full owner of the property. It had earlier been opined by the learned trial Court that for a sale to take place, the accused must have had the ownership over the property. It "sale" was taken to mean a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised. It was ultimately concluded that the atta kept in the premises of the Mill was not intended for sale, and so, Section 10(2) of the Act was not attracted and, as such, the accused was not bound to sell the samples to the Food Inspector.

(3.) IN reply Shri Bhattacharjee submits that the matter is not as simple as put forward by the learned Public Prosecutor, as Sections 7 and 16 are to be read along with Section 10 which has defined the power of the Food Inspector to take samples. He relies in the this context on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. L.N. Tandon,, AIR 1975 SC 621 wherein, after referring to Sections 7, 10 and 16 of the Act, it was held as below in para 14: